IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI SECOND APPEAL No. 1339 of 2024 JULEKHA BI Versus DINESH NIRWANI Appearance:

Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Dattatray Kale, learned counsel for the respondent.

Heard on : 17.12.2025 Pronounced on : 09.02.2026 ORDER This appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant/defendant against the concurrent findings rendered by the trial court in Civil Suit No.A/722/2016 in judgment and decree dated 22.07.2023 as affirmed by the first appellate court in Civil Regular Appeal No.11A/2024 vide judgment and decree dated 24.04.2024.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the ground under Section 12 (1) (a) (c) (g) (h) and (f) of The M.P. Accommodation Control Act against the defendant/appellant on 24.11.2016 with respect to tenanted premises situated in Ward No.16 of Municipal Council, Mahidpur having house No.88/9. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff/respondent is the owner and title holder of the tenanted premises which he received in family settlement which was later on recorded for acknowledgement vide family settlement deed dated 08.01.2006. Originally his father was owner of the said property and before him his grand father. It was averred in the plaint that in family settlement the plaintiff/respondent received a total area of 20x60 fts. including the suit property. It was averred that in the tenanted premises there are two rooms and one open space which is called Otlaa (in vernacular language). It is covered by a tin shade. The width and length of tenanted premises is 9.6x30 fts. It was averred in the plaint that the tenanted premises was given on rent by the grand father of the plaintiff Late Shri Bhagwan Das Ji in the year 1950 to the father of the defendant/appellant- Late Shri Gani Mohammad and after death of his grand father the tenancy continue by his father Late Shri Hanuman Prasad Ji and after his death on 19.03.2005, the respondent/plaintiff was receiving rent. It was also averred in the plaint that the defendant/appellant is residing in the tenanted premises along with her elder sister Jaina Bai after the death of their father Gani Mohammad. It was further averred in the plaint that the respondent/plaintiff intended to construct a well-furnished market on the suit property for which necessary permissions have been taken from the Municipal Council, Mahidpur. Apart from this, according to family settlement right to passage is required to be given from the property which has come in his share in the family settlement, therefore, he is in bonafide need of the tenanted premises. In addition to this, it was also averred that the appellant/defendant has not paid rent of the said premises from January, 2016. It was also averred that the tenanted premises is in dilapidated condition and not in condition for habitation of any person for which the notice was duly given to the defendant/appellant. As such, the suit was pressed on different grounds i.e. bonafide need, default of rent and for its repair as well as demolition and construction of market.

3. The appellant/defendant filed written statement in denial of plaint pleadings, however, the tenancy was admitted. It was admitted in the written statement that the grand father of the plaintiff Late Shri Bhagwan Das Nirwani had given the suit premises to Late Shri Gani Mohammad on a rent of Rs.10 per month. However, it was also stated that Collector is the manager of the temple and Bhagwan Das Ji was the Pujaari of the same, thus, the tenanted premises was not in the title and ownership of the plaintiff. The ground of bonafide need was also denied. It was also denied that the suit property is in dilapidated condition.

4. The trial court after recording evidence concluded that the appellant/defendant failed to lead any evidence so as to establish that the suit p